We fought two world wars prior to NATO, Europe has been co-ordinating with Ukraine which is outside NATO.
Not everything needs to be satellite guided missiles. In a situation like this you would give overall command to the country under attack I would think - in this case Denmark.
In Ukraine, they have started using bows because arrows penetrate sandbags, which bullets don't. High tech machinery requires fuel, ammunition and supply lines, in this case 100s of miles long and therefore very vulnerable.
NATO was screwed over in Afghanistan by paramilitaries AK47s and IEDs. It is to do with the fact that you can not flood the landmass with a soldier every 10 feet. So the invader ends up defending a base and then going out on patrol within a hostile environment. Unless they are going to transport 100s of thousands of Americans to live in Greenland, raise their kids their, work there - they are not going to make Greenland into an American territory. They could militarily occupy part of Greenland for a period of time, and then they would lose control of it.
Trump would not send the whole US army he would send an expeditionary force.
The key thing in terms of empowering his internal opposition, is to be credibly clear that there would be armed opposition and that is not in America's interest.
The way Trump operates, a decent delay with lots of talk and then Trump signs a deal allowing US forces to operate from bases in Greenland - ie: exactly what he already has, but presented as his deal. Pandering to his ego while actually giving nothing away seems to be an effective strategy to deal with Trump.
I have pointed out such a deal is already out there. It is a Pact that was signed between the United States and the Kingdom of Denmark in 1951. See the post above
I think that was Alan's point. Give Trump exactly what the US already has, but presented in such a way that he can make a big song and dance about it and pretend that it is an awesome new deal. It is a tempting idea but I am not convinced he will fall for it. He says he wants "ownership" and I don't think he will settle for less.
Once again, @Doublethink you are not comparing like with like. Much of Greenland is uninhabitable. Nobody could wage a guerilla war there even with bows and arrows.
The US wouldn't need to control the entire landmass. It would only need to isolate key strategic points.
How would the Danes or any other European power sustain and resupply its troops if there was a US naval blockade and a few strategically placed US airstrips?
We are talking about Greenland not Fantasy Island.
Heck, if Greenland were eminently defensible Trump wouldn't even be considering annexing it.
The only reason he is suggesting such a course of action is because he knows it would be militarily feasible - even if bonkers on every other level.
As it stands he probably wouldn't have to rely on military muscle. The scenario @Gramps49 paints is a feasible one.
Everything you have suggested is completely unfeasible for the reasons I have repeatedly outlined. Greenland isn't Afghanistan. It isn't Iraq. It's not the Ukraine. It's a sparsely populated island which has resources Trump covets.
Perhaps we should quote the Tenth Commandment to his religious MAGA supporters ...
Whether those resources are economically recoverable, though, is another matter entirely.
I would also note that any US action in Greenland would put Canada in a very, very awkward spot, not least from the fact that the closest NATO airport is in Iqaluit, Nunavut.
@Gamma Gamaliel you are missing the point.. I am not saying Greenland is like Iraq or Afghanistan. I am saying you can not incorporate a territory into your country with forts/installations and patrols - and long term asymmetric warfare is a thing. Trump does not have the time, focus, or political capital to sustain a long term asymmetric conflict.
Europe and NATO are rapidly getting less and less out of playing nice with Trump - if this continues the economic pain of being on bad terms with him will not be outweighed by the advantages.
(ETA try googling "asymetric warfare" and "how the weak win")
You haven't once given any indication of who is going to carry out this 'asymmetric warfare', where they'll be based, how they'll be supplied, how they'd be able to operate out in the Arctic tundra ...
You are describing a cloud-cuckoo land scenario.
It's not that I don't understand what you are getting at. I do. It's just that I can't see how it could possibly apply in the case of Greenland.
If the US, the UK or any other power were to annexe Papua New Guinea or Sri Lanka or Sarawak, Tasmania or Madagascar then I'd say you had a point.
But not Greenland.
The only country close enough to resist an American take over of Greenland and act as platform for harassing its ongoing occupation would be Canada.
As it shares a border with the US would it risk an all out confrontation?
I ask you once again. Who would be in any position to carry out asymmetric undermining of US activities in Greenland to the extent that it becomes untenable?
The UK couldn't. Denmark couldn't. 58,000 Greenlanders wouldn't pose a problem. Trump would offer them incentives to accept the status quo.
What are you envisaging? A guerrilla force of Greenlanders hiding in the tundra supplied by Denmark and other European nations via Canada?
Danish forces remaining at large in sufficient numbers to pin down an occupying US force?
None of these scenarios are remotely feasible.
There wouldn't be any need for forts and patrols as there'd be nobody out there in the tundra in the first place.
The entire population lives in a handful of settlements along the coast. Those would easily be policed. Nobody lives outside those main settlements. It just isn't feasible for any organised opposition to exist.
This isn't the Romans building Hadrian's Wall. We are taking about a handful of key installations that could be quickly captured and secured and with no real hinterland from which any ongoing resistance could emerge.
What do you envisage? Submarines landing SAS men to blow up US installations? It's all moonshine.
@Gamma Gamaliel you are missing the point.. I am not saying Greenland is like Iraq or Afghanistan. I am saying you can not incorporate a territory into your country with forts/installations and patrols - and long term asymmetric warfare is a thing. Trump does not have the time, focus, or political capital to sustain a long term asymmetric conflict.
Europe and NATO are rapidly getting less and less out of playing nice with Trump - if this continues the economic pain of being on bad terms with him will not be outweighed by the advantages.
(ETA try googling "asymetric warfare" and "how the weak win")
Greenland has a total population of 58.000. In most asymmetric wars, you will find 3-5% of the population actively involved in the rebellion. That would be about $1,750 to 2.900 people. An asymmetric war would depend on organization, legitimacy, external support and the weakness of the opposing forces. While Greenlanders could claim the legitmacy of their cause, if it came to that, their organization could quickly be penetrated, they would be starved for external support, and they could not stand up to the strength of the American forces. Another key element is the amount of safe haven the rebels can retreat to. An island of mostly ice is vastly inhabitable, even for the most prepared arctic people,
There seems to be an assumption that just because most examples of asymmetric warfare have involved resistance forces with hideouts in wilderness locations that that has to be be how a resistance war is fought. The artic tundra is going to be as inhospitable to US forces as it is to all but a few Greenlanders (there will be some, especially among the Inuit, who could probably travel and survive there fairly well, but the vast majority of urban citizens are going to be as useless in the wilderness as city dwellers everywhere). A US occupation will have the majority of the military within the confines of air and naval bases, that keeps them safe but also ineffective at controlling the nation (though probably very effective at their job of monitoring the surrounding ocean). But, there will need to be US presence in the towns to maintain a functioning government, and at any mines opened to exploit the minerals. Those will be vulnerable, and the resistance who threaten them won't be in the wilderness but in the same towns. The paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland operated effectively in the towns and cities, protected by communities who were not active fighters but more than willing to provide safe housing and food, and keep quiet when the police came calling; even those who were in the countryside or who slipped out of town when things got hot weren't roughing it in tents in the woods but had places to hide in farms and small rural communities. In the countryside, even more so in the open tundra, things look simple to soldiers - somewhere out there is the enemy, and there's very few if any innocent civilians; shoot what moves or just order in the heavy artillery (or, in some times and places the napalm or agent orange). When the resistance are among civilian populations things get much more difficult for the occupying forces - how many civilian casualties are you going to accept, knowing each of them will be counted in the international media and turn even more of the population militant? How are your soldiers going to react to orders that they know will be killing unarmed civilians? How are the folks at home going to react, will they welcome troops back at the end of their tour of duty as heroes or villains? And, there's always the important factor - when you engage the resistance and kill 100 of them but lose 5 of your guys you might call it a victory, but the folks back home won't care about the 100 and care an awful lot about the 5.
I simply can not imagine any sane political leader actually seeking out a situation where military commanders have to be faced with that sort of operation, unless there's no alternative.
Wikipedia lists 71 settlements in Greenland. The largest is Nuuk with approximately 20,100. The smallest is Kangerluk with 4 people. Some of the settlements could have been abandoned since the list was developed. Most of the settlements are on the West shore of Greenland, along a narrow band that is relatively free of ice.
Frankly, all this hypothesizing that the Greenlanders or Inuit would put up a stiff guerilla insurrection is a pipedream.
Let's step back from this.
If anything, if the US takes Greenland by force, the only real thing that can happen is for NATO countries to seize American assets (bases) in their countries and give the US forces thirty days to leave their countries. DE Gaulle did that once. But there is a risk there, would they be prepared to meet an external threat from the East.
I suppose the question is how stiff would resistance have to be to make occupation unviable? Heck, how many protesting Greenlanders being shot by edgy National Guardsmen would it take? The military impact of resistance is far less important than the fact of it and the psychological impact that has. It probably only takes a few US personnel getting shot by Greenlandic hunters for support to collapse. Remember, there is no way to portray Greenlanders as fanatics or ideologically driven maniacs like the invading forces did to those resisting in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is no dictator, no major injustice, nothing that could possibly give even the fig leaf of a moral high ground.
Trump’s latest pronouncement seems to specifically rule out any deal other than US ownership.
Although it’s tempting to see some kind of a deal under which he gets Greenland in exchange for some other compromises, I don’t think so. The Donroe doctrine doesn’t require him to deal with Europeans re Ukraine. But it certainly allows him to claim Greenland as part of his Western Hemisphere.
Mind you, many MAGA supporters are isolationists. I’m not sure they will be all that pleased with an attempt to build a larger US empire. I’m wondering if that may be behind some of the current GOP defections.
The Donroe doctrine may go down well with some powerful multinational companies who support him, and will undoubtedly be good for his ego. But it could erode his loyal base to some extent.
Remember, there is no way to portray Greenlanders as fanatics or ideologically driven maniacs like the invading forces did to those resisting in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is no dictator, no major injustice, nothing that could possibly give even the fig leaf of a moral high ground.
I think you need to consider that they just make up facts to suit.
I think we also need to consider how hesitant they are likely to be about shooting civilians.
Given that Trump and Co. appear to be perfectly comfortable with shooting their own citizens dead, I wouldn't want to bet lives on them exercising more restraint in Greenland.
I might feel differently if he demands Scotland next. Not about how he is likely to behave, but about what I would consider an appropriate response.
In Northern Ireland you had a large metropolis, Belfast, plus several other sizeable centres of population. There was also a rural hinterland and the Republic of Ireland just over the fields.
Greenland has nothing of the kind.
US personnel would be largely safe inside their bases and a few garrisons in the larger settlements would ensure that no substantial resistance could develop.
Heck, if even 5 US personnel were to be taken home in body bags having been shot by Inuit hunting rifles, it wouldn't lead to mass withdrawal. Yes, it would cause massive debate, protest and repercussions domestically within the US but any MAGA-administration whether headed by Trump, Vance or their acolytes would simply demonise the perpetrators and call for tougher action.
'These Inuit hunters are sub-human terrorists. They suck blood from walrus carcases. They aren't civilised. They aren't white.'
I wouldn't put it past MAGA fanatics to intern almost the entire population. The British Empire penned thousands of Boer civilians into concentration camps. And heck, it's not as if the US historically doesn't have form in penning native people's into reservations.
Look at the response to the Minneapolis shooting. Trump claimed that the ICE agent had been hospitalised which was clearly not the case.
Some pundits are saying, 'Why all this fuss about Trump and the US? Look at Iran. Surely they are a bigger threat to global peace and stability?'
But Iran is known as a repressive, theocratic regime. Putin's Russia is known for its record of repression and suppression of human rights.
What would a MAGA US be known for? Exactly the same.
No, what's needed here is regime change. Through the ballot box.
What's needed is for ordinary decent Americans to stand up against autocracy. Nobody is saying that drug cartels or criminals should be offered a free pass. But no-one is saying that ICE agents should shoot US citizens with impunity either. Or that Trump should be allowed to annexe and 'own' siveteign territory either.
Why didn't the agent shoot the tyres or fire a warning shot if he felt threatened?
I suspect he was jumpy from previously being injured by a car during a protest, but that's a matter for another thread.
Why should Trump be allowed to threaten and intimidate loyal allies such as Canada and Denmark?
It's sometimes said that Trump shouldn't be taken literally but taken seriously.
Well yes. I do both. Both/and.
I take him literally and seriously as an autocratic monster.
At the risk of labouring a point, it's also not the case that asymmetrical conflicts have auspicious outcomes.
In 1948 Malagasy rebels rose against the French colonial government. They took the authorities by surprise and quickly overran various provinces and installations. They were armed with spears, machetes, muzzle-loading muskets and a few captured rifles and machine guns.
The French responded quickly landing colonial troops from Sierra Leone and Foreign Legionaires. They acted brutally. They torched villages, carried out summary executions, tortured people, threw suspects out of aeroplanes and used rape as a weapon of war.
They carried out atrocities that would have warranted trial at Nuremberg had they been committed by the Nazis.
They rounded up around 180 ring-leaders, put them in railway carriages and mowed them down with rifle and machine gun fire.
They expelled British diplomats who refused to share intelligence and falsely accused them of supplying information to the rebels about troop movements and positions.
Yes, Madagascar did gain its independence in 1960 but a whole generation of potential leaders and administrators had been executed by the French during the uprising.
It's easy to get starry-eyed and romantic about asymmetric conflicts - David versus Goliath.
But the reality ain't pretty.
If Trump ever acquires Greenland, by legitimate or illegitimate means, the consequences would be economic prosperity for the Greenlanders but offered with an iron fist.
Don't misunderstand me. The French could 'get away' with naked oppression in Madagascar because it was a remote island in the Indian Ocean. They made sure the British - who have never been Saints themselves when it comes to colonial rule - were out of the way so as not to bring their atrocities to world attention.
US occupation of Greenland would be open to more scrutiny given its location but I'd have no doubt they'd clamp down hard on any internal insurgency or support from abroad.
The corollary of America being 'Great Again' is of course that everyone else is inferior and can be shat upon with impunity.
First of all only 7% of Americans would support the occupation of Greenland. It will not take body bags for any support to collapse. It is just not there in the first place. It is Trump's own morality that is going to stop this, he says.
Second to the comment about the ICE agent being in the hospital, @Gamma Gamaliel. This happened in a previous incident in April when he tried to stop a car by reaching in through a window and he was dragged several blocks.
Now, in my mind, there is lower hanging fruit to pick. Since Trump already has forces in the Caribbean why not take out the Cuban government? I doubt there would be any opposition to that governments fall. Rubio is pushing for that.
Or go after the cartels in Mexico? This could be done either through special forces action or a few strategic bombs. I think more Americans would be in favor of that than taking over Greenland.
Given the nature of the beast, it seems unwise to try to predict in any way what Trump might or might not do (or at least attempt).
As to resistance on the ground, again, who can say? Those being threatened have said that if the US starts shooting, there'll be shooting back. It may not last long, of course, given the US military might.
Given the nature of the beast, it seems unwise to try to predict in any way what Trump might or might not do (or at least attempt).
As to resistance on the ground, again, who can say? Those being threatened have said that if the US starts shooting, there'll be shooting back. It may not last long, of course, given the US military might.
I do not think there will be shooting by any side here. Europe is taking a negotiating posture. As @Alan Cresswell and I have said, the Art of the Deal guy would rather take the island through a handshake. Throw some money the Greenlander's way. smooth some feathers Denmark's way, we'll be good.
If there's a deal done above the heads of the people of Greenland that results in Greenland becoming some form of US property then I expect that the people of Greenland will be exercising rights anyone in a real democracy would have - the rights to protest against their new "owners", including civil disobedience, obstruction of the movement of US troops etc. Greenlanders using vehicles to block roads to US bases, and the like. Maybe even splashing red paint over US military vehicles. Of course, on current form, there'll be some poorly trained US trooper who considers that equivalent to armed insurrection and shoots unarmed protestors.
The problem with that is the Greenlanders don't want their island taken by the USA full stop. And doing so against their wishes is a flagrant violation of their right to self-determination.
The problem with that is the Greenlanders don't want their island taken by the USA full stop. And doing so against their wishes is a flagrant violation of their right to self-determination.
True. What Trump is doing, though, is acting like a feudal lord. It is only about making a payment from one lord to another. Peasants don't matter. I fall back on regime change on the part of the US. Trump may make a temporary deal, but that will change when we have a new Democratic president.
I agree that Trump is more likely to start shooting other places up rather than Greenland which he can probably 'buy' at some point.
On the issue of popular support. You will be able to answer this better than I can @Gramps49, but to what extent would public opinion shape this current administration's thinking?
Some 7% of US citizens supporting a Trump take-over of Greenland is indeed a small proportion. But would Trump, Vance and Rubio take note of any popular mandate?
If the only check and balance on the current POTUS is his own 'morality' then to what extent would that be influenced by popular opinion?
'Trust me. This is in American interests. You might not agree but I'm in charge and I know best...'
@Gamma Gamaliel I disagree. It is not just about the population of Greenland it is about the military assets of NATO.
Great powers have continued to lose asymmetric conflicts at a much higher rate than the disparate metrics of military power would predict across the 20th and 21st centuries.
I am not saying it would be in any sense nice - it would be horrific but NATO will not just roll over and let America annex Greenland. It would be an essential threat to NATO and eastern Europe in particular sees NATO as essential to their protection from Russia.
Without NATO protects each other the whole of the border with Russia is vulnerable to incursion.
Now, in my mind, there is lower hanging fruit to pick. Since Trump already has forces in the Caribbean why not take out the Cuban government? I doubt there would be any opposition to that governments fall. Rubio is pushing for that.
You mean there would be no opposition to an invasion among the Cuban people? I am not a starry-eyed romanticist about Castro and Che, but from everything I've heard about Cuba, the regime maintains at least a modicum of popularity, and history has conditioned them against the idea of US troops marching through their cities and countrysides.
Now, in my mind, there is lower hanging fruit to pick. Since Trump already has forces in the Caribbean why not take out the Cuban government? I doubt there would be any opposition to that governments fall. Rubio is pushing for that.
You mean there would be no opposition to an invasion among the Cuban people? I am not a starry-eyed romanticist about Castro and Che, but from everything I've heard about Cuba, the regime maintains at least a modicum of popularity, and history has conditioned them against the idea of US troops marching through their cities and countrysides.
Support for a government can often be an odd thing, especially once other nations start to interfere. The Cubans may not fully support their government, but that doesn't mean that if US troops were to move out from Guantanamo and land across the island they'd be welcomed, indeed a real external enemy may end up rebuilding support for the current government. The US administration runs the same risk with threats to Iran, if US bombs start to fall they may undermine the protest movement as that will start to look less like people disagreeing with their government over economic policy and more like treason in support of the US.
@Gamma Gamaliel I disagree. It is not just about the population of Greenland it is about the military assets of NATO.
Great powers have continued to lose asymmetric conflicts at a much higher rate than the disparate metrics of military power would predict across the 20th and 21st centuries.
I am not saying it would be in any sense nice - it would be horrific but NATO will not just roll over and let America annex Greenland. It would be an essential threat to NATO and eastern Europe in particular sees NATO as essential to their protection from Russia.
Without NATO protects each other the whole of the border with Russia is vulnerable to incursion.
How would NATO deploy those military assets?
You haven't explained how NATO could operate without the US nor how the European powers could resist a US incursion into Greenland.
Disagree as much as you like but you haven't shown how this could be feasible in any way, shape or form.
Both @chrisstiles and @Gramps49 have put forward geopolitical and military reasons why this is complete moonshine yet you persist in living in cloud-cuckoo land.
As I recollect, most NATO deployments abroad (i.e. beyond Europe) have depended on the logistical capabilities of the USAF Logistical Command, at least for rapid deployment. Of course, many NATO countries have seafaring capabilities, but that takes a much longer process.
I should note that all four northern Territories in North America are heavily subsidized by their upper level governments. Greenland receives 70% of its government budget from Denmark. Nunavut gets 80% of its budget from the Government of Canada. These Territories are money sinks.
The reason mining in Greenland us minimal, there is only one active mine, is the Greenland Ice Sheet makes mining there impossible.
Whatever argument for annexing Greenland there is, economics isn't one of them.
Given that there's already a treaty in place that enables the US to expand its military bases on the island, what incentive is there?
If the mining of rare-earth minerals would be prohibitively expensive, then it can't be that.
If only 7% of Americans would support the US annexation of Greenland then posturing to his support base wouldn't appear to offer sufficient justification either.
One can only conclude:
That he enjoys intimidating allies and showing them who is 'boss.'
He's completely irrational and has no coherent policy or plan.
I can't think of any other alternatives right now.
Given that there's already a treaty in place that enables the US to expand its military bases on the island, what incentive is there?
If the mining of rare-earth minerals would be prohibitively expensive, then it can't be that.
If only 7% of Americans would support the US annexation of Greenland then posturing to his support base wouldn't appear to offer sufficient justification either.
One can only conclude:
That he enjoys intimidating allies and showing them who is 'boss.'
He's completely irrational and has no coherent policy or plan.
I can't think of any other alternatives right now.
Any advance on that anyone?
Trump's fellow Epstein Birthday Book Artist Peter Mandelson made some comments the other day, to the effect that people should focus less on Trump's literal demands, and more on his long-term ideas about where the world is heading, specifically how the rise of China is putting everyone on course to a new, post-Pax Americana multipolarity.
Assuming Mandelson's analysis of Trump's vision is shared by Trump himself(and Rubio, I think it was, has actually used "multipolar" to describe his desired world order), then I might surmise that Trump is thinking something like...
"Okay, if the world's power blocs are gonna be America running the western hemisphere, Western Europe running itself, Russia running Eastern Europe, and China running Asia, then I can become a big hero by getting in on the ground floor and making territorial claims all over my neighbourhood."
IOW, he's probably got a plausible model for how things are shaping up, but is creating chaos by artificially trying to conjure up its arrival.
Comments
Not everything needs to be satellite guided missiles. In a situation like this you would give overall command to the country under attack I would think - in this case Denmark.
In Ukraine, they have started using bows because arrows penetrate sandbags, which bullets don't. High tech machinery requires fuel, ammunition and supply lines, in this case 100s of miles long and therefore very vulnerable.
NATO was screwed over in Afghanistan by paramilitaries AK47s and IEDs. It is to do with the fact that you can not flood the landmass with a soldier every 10 feet. So the invader ends up defending a base and then going out on patrol within a hostile environment. Unless they are going to transport 100s of thousands of Americans to live in Greenland, raise their kids their, work there - they are not going to make Greenland into an American territory. They could militarily occupy part of Greenland for a period of time, and then they would lose control of it.
Trump would not send the whole US army he would send an expeditionary force.
The key thing in terms of empowering his internal opposition, is to be credibly clear that there would be armed opposition and that is not in America's interest.
I have pointed out such a deal is already out there. It is a Pact that was signed between the United States and the Kingdom of Denmark in 1951. See the post above
The US wouldn't need to control the entire landmass. It would only need to isolate key strategic points.
How would the Danes or any other European power sustain and resupply its troops if there was a US naval blockade and a few strategically placed US airstrips?
We are talking about Greenland not Fantasy Island.
Heck, if Greenland were eminently defensible Trump wouldn't even be considering annexing it.
The only reason he is suggesting such a course of action is because he knows it would be militarily feasible - even if bonkers on every other level.
As it stands he probably wouldn't have to rely on military muscle. The scenario @Gramps49 paints is a feasible one.
Everything you have suggested is completely unfeasible for the reasons I have repeatedly outlined. Greenland isn't Afghanistan. It isn't Iraq. It's not the Ukraine. It's a sparsely populated island which has resources Trump covets.
Perhaps we should quote the Tenth Commandment to his religious MAGA supporters ...
I would also note that any US action in Greenland would put Canada in a very, very awkward spot, not least from the fact that the closest NATO airport is in Iqaluit, Nunavut.
Europe and NATO are rapidly getting less and less out of playing nice with Trump - if this continues the economic pain of being on bad terms with him will not be outweighed by the advantages.
(ETA try googling "asymetric warfare" and "how the weak win")
You haven't once given any indication of who is going to carry out this 'asymmetric warfare', where they'll be based, how they'll be supplied, how they'd be able to operate out in the Arctic tundra ...
You are describing a cloud-cuckoo land scenario.
It's not that I don't understand what you are getting at. I do. It's just that I can't see how it could possibly apply in the case of Greenland.
If the US, the UK or any other power were to annexe Papua New Guinea or Sri Lanka or Sarawak, Tasmania or Madagascar then I'd say you had a point.
But not Greenland.
The only country close enough to resist an American take over of Greenland and act as platform for harassing its ongoing occupation would be Canada.
As it shares a border with the US would it risk an all out confrontation?
I ask you once again. Who would be in any position to carry out asymmetric undermining of US activities in Greenland to the extent that it becomes untenable?
The UK couldn't. Denmark couldn't. 58,000 Greenlanders wouldn't pose a problem. Trump would offer them incentives to accept the status quo.
What are you envisaging? A guerrilla force of Greenlanders hiding in the tundra supplied by Denmark and other European nations via Canada?
Danish forces remaining at large in sufficient numbers to pin down an occupying US force?
None of these scenarios are remotely feasible.
There wouldn't be any need for forts and patrols as there'd be nobody out there in the tundra in the first place.
The entire population lives in a handful of settlements along the coast. Those would easily be policed. Nobody lives outside those main settlements. It just isn't feasible for any organised opposition to exist.
This isn't the Romans building Hadrian's Wall. We are taking about a handful of key installations that could be quickly captured and secured and with no real hinterland from which any ongoing resistance could emerge.
What do you envisage? Submarines landing SAS men to blow up US installations? It's all moonshine.
Greenland has a total population of 58.000. In most asymmetric wars, you will find 3-5% of the population actively involved in the rebellion. That would be about $1,750 to 2.900 people. An asymmetric war would depend on organization, legitimacy, external support and the weakness of the opposing forces. While Greenlanders could claim the legitmacy of their cause, if it came to that, their organization could quickly be penetrated, they would be starved for external support, and they could not stand up to the strength of the American forces. Another key element is the amount of safe haven the rebels can retreat to. An island of mostly ice is vastly inhabitable, even for the most prepared arctic people,
Heck, it wouldn't even be a fair fight.
I simply can not imagine any sane political leader actually seeking out a situation where military commanders have to be faced with that sort of operation, unless there's no alternative.
Frankly, all this hypothesizing that the Greenlanders or Inuit would put up a stiff guerilla insurrection is a pipedream.
Let's step back from this.
If anything, if the US takes Greenland by force, the only real thing that can happen is for NATO countries to seize American assets (bases) in their countries and give the US forces thirty days to leave their countries. DE Gaulle did that once. But there is a risk there, would they be prepared to meet an external threat from the East.
Although it’s tempting to see some kind of a deal under which he gets Greenland in exchange for some other compromises, I don’t think so. The Donroe doctrine doesn’t require him to deal with Europeans re Ukraine. But it certainly allows him to claim Greenland as part of his Western Hemisphere.
Mind you, many MAGA supporters are isolationists. I’m not sure they will be all that pleased with an attempt to build a larger US empire. I’m wondering if that may be behind some of the current GOP defections.
The Donroe doctrine may go down well with some powerful multinational companies who support him, and will undoubtedly be good for his ego. But it could erode his loyal base to some extent.
I think you need to consider that they just make up facts to suit.
Given that Trump and Co. appear to be perfectly comfortable with shooting their own citizens dead, I wouldn't want to bet lives on them exercising more restraint in Greenland.
I might feel differently if he demands Scotland next. Not about how he is likely to behave, but about what I would consider an appropriate response.
But Scotland is pretty safe.
In Northern Ireland you had a large metropolis, Belfast, plus several other sizeable centres of population. There was also a rural hinterland and the Republic of Ireland just over the fields.
Greenland has nothing of the kind.
US personnel would be largely safe inside their bases and a few garrisons in the larger settlements would ensure that no substantial resistance could develop.
Heck, if even 5 US personnel were to be taken home in body bags having been shot by Inuit hunting rifles, it wouldn't lead to mass withdrawal. Yes, it would cause massive debate, protest and repercussions domestically within the US but any MAGA-administration whether headed by Trump, Vance or their acolytes would simply demonise the perpetrators and call for tougher action.
'These Inuit hunters are sub-human terrorists. They suck blood from walrus carcases. They aren't civilised. They aren't white.'
I wouldn't put it past MAGA fanatics to intern almost the entire population. The British Empire penned thousands of Boer civilians into concentration camps. And heck, it's not as if the US historically doesn't have form in penning native people's into reservations.
Look at the response to the Minneapolis shooting. Trump claimed that the ICE agent had been hospitalised which was clearly not the case.
Some pundits are saying, 'Why all this fuss about Trump and the US? Look at Iran. Surely they are a bigger threat to global peace and stability?'
But Iran is known as a repressive, theocratic regime. Putin's Russia is known for its record of repression and suppression of human rights.
What would a MAGA US be known for? Exactly the same.
No, what's needed here is regime change. Through the ballot box.
What's needed is for ordinary decent Americans to stand up against autocracy. Nobody is saying that drug cartels or criminals should be offered a free pass. But no-one is saying that ICE agents should shoot US citizens with impunity either. Or that Trump should be allowed to annexe and 'own' siveteign territory either.
Why didn't the agent shoot the tyres or fire a warning shot if he felt threatened?
I suspect he was jumpy from previously being injured by a car during a protest, but that's a matter for another thread.
Why should Trump be allowed to threaten and intimidate loyal allies such as Canada and Denmark?
It's sometimes said that Trump shouldn't be taken literally but taken seriously.
Well yes. I do both. Both/and.
I take him literally and seriously as an autocratic monster.
In 1948 Malagasy rebels rose against the French colonial government. They took the authorities by surprise and quickly overran various provinces and installations. They were armed with spears, machetes, muzzle-loading muskets and a few captured rifles and machine guns.
The French responded quickly landing colonial troops from Sierra Leone and Foreign Legionaires. They acted brutally. They torched villages, carried out summary executions, tortured people, threw suspects out of aeroplanes and used rape as a weapon of war.
They carried out atrocities that would have warranted trial at Nuremberg had they been committed by the Nazis.
They rounded up around 180 ring-leaders, put them in railway carriages and mowed them down with rifle and machine gun fire.
They expelled British diplomats who refused to share intelligence and falsely accused them of supplying information to the rebels about troop movements and positions.
Yes, Madagascar did gain its independence in 1960 but a whole generation of potential leaders and administrators had been executed by the French during the uprising.
It's easy to get starry-eyed and romantic about asymmetric conflicts - David versus Goliath.
But the reality ain't pretty.
If Trump ever acquires Greenland, by legitimate or illegitimate means, the consequences would be economic prosperity for the Greenlanders but offered with an iron fist.
Don't misunderstand me. The French could 'get away' with naked oppression in Madagascar because it was a remote island in the Indian Ocean. They made sure the British - who have never been Saints themselves when it comes to colonial rule - were out of the way so as not to bring their atrocities to world attention.
US occupation of Greenland would be open to more scrutiny given its location but I'd have no doubt they'd clamp down hard on any internal insurgency or support from abroad.
The corollary of America being 'Great Again' is of course that everyone else is inferior and can be shat upon with impunity.
Second to the comment about the ICE agent being in the hospital, @Gamma Gamaliel. This happened in a previous incident in April when he tried to stop a car by reaching in through a window and he was dragged several blocks.
Now, in my mind, there is lower hanging fruit to pick. Since Trump already has forces in the Caribbean why not take out the Cuban government? I doubt there would be any opposition to that governments fall. Rubio is pushing for that.
Or go after the cartels in Mexico? This could be done either through special forces action or a few strategic bombs. I think more Americans would be in favor of that than taking over Greenland.
As to resistance on the ground, again, who can say? Those being threatened have said that if the US starts shooting, there'll be shooting back. It may not last long, of course, given the US military might.
I do not think there will be shooting by any side here. Europe is taking a negotiating posture. As @Alan Cresswell and I have said, the Art of the Deal guy would rather take the island through a handshake. Throw some money the Greenlander's way. smooth some feathers Denmark's way, we'll be good.
True. What Trump is doing, though, is acting like a feudal lord. It is only about making a payment from one lord to another. Peasants don't matter. I fall back on regime change on the part of the US. Trump may make a temporary deal, but that will change when we have a new Democratic president.
I agree that Trump is more likely to start shooting other places up rather than Greenland which he can probably 'buy' at some point.
On the issue of popular support. You will be able to answer this better than I can @Gramps49, but to what extent would public opinion shape this current administration's thinking?
Some 7% of US citizens supporting a Trump take-over of Greenland is indeed a small proportion. But would Trump, Vance and Rubio take note of any popular mandate?
If the only check and balance on the current POTUS is his own 'morality' then to what extent would that be influenced by popular opinion?
'Trust me. This is in American interests. You might not agree but I'm in charge and I know best...'
Great powers have continued to lose asymmetric conflicts at a much higher rate than the disparate metrics of military power would predict across the 20th and 21st centuries.
I am not saying it would be in any sense nice - it would be horrific but NATO will not just roll over and let America annex Greenland. It would be an essential threat to NATO and eastern Europe in particular sees NATO as essential to their protection from Russia.
Without NATO protects each other the whole of the border with Russia is vulnerable to incursion.
You mean there would be no opposition to an invasion among the Cuban people? I am not a starry-eyed romanticist about Castro and Che, but from everything I've heard about Cuba, the regime maintains at least a modicum of popularity, and history has conditioned them against the idea of US troops marching through their cities and countrysides.
Don't know what you are reading, but my information says governmental support in Cuba is very fragile and declining. Read: https://theconversation.com/cubas-leaders-just-lost-an-ally-in-maduro-if-starved-of-venezuelan-oil-they-may-also-lose-what-remains-of-their-public-support-272681. As the article says, with the loss of Maduro, everything is about to colapse.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2026/jan/10/cuba-regime-polycrisis-collapse-exodus-economy-migration-us-sanctions-trump
Looking further afield, surely even Trump is not so mad as to take on Iran and Cuba, not to mention the 'little people' (to him) of Greenland...
How would NATO deploy those military assets?
You haven't explained how NATO could operate without the US nor how the European powers could resist a US incursion into Greenland.
Disagree as much as you like but you haven't shown how this could be feasible in any way, shape or form.
Both @chrisstiles and @Gramps49 have put forward geopolitical and military reasons why this is complete moonshine yet you persist in living in cloud-cuckoo land.
The reason mining in Greenland us minimal, there is only one active mine, is the Greenland Ice Sheet makes mining there impossible.
Whatever argument for annexing Greenland there is, economics isn't one of them.
Given that there's already a treaty in place that enables the US to expand its military bases on the island, what incentive is there?
If the mining of rare-earth minerals would be prohibitively expensive, then it can't be that.
If only 7% of Americans would support the US annexation of Greenland then posturing to his support base wouldn't appear to offer sufficient justification either.
One can only conclude:
That he enjoys intimidating allies and showing them who is 'boss.'
He's completely irrational and has no coherent policy or plan.
I can't think of any other alternatives right now.
Any advance on that anyone?
Trump's fellow Epstein Birthday Book Artist Peter Mandelson made some comments the other day, to the effect that people should focus less on Trump's literal demands, and more on his long-term ideas about where the world is heading, specifically how the rise of China is putting everyone on course to a new, post-Pax Americana multipolarity.
Assuming Mandelson's analysis of Trump's vision is shared by Trump himself(and Rubio, I think it was, has actually used "multipolar" to describe his desired world order), then I might surmise that Trump is thinking something like...
"Okay, if the world's power blocs are gonna be America running the western hemisphere, Western Europe running itself, Russia running Eastern Europe, and China running Asia, then I can become a big hero by getting in on the ground floor and making territorial claims all over my neighbourhood."
IOW, he's probably got a plausible model for how things are shaping up, but is creating chaos by artificially trying to conjure up its arrival.